Q&A with the new BRP Author

[The Tweaker]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

It wasn't really a case of "no one wanted to invest the time" - it was a question of:

a) has any BRP book ever dealt with gear/vehicle construction in such a fashion?
b) does BRP really have the need for those sorts of systems?

The answer to both of these questions is a resounding no, so it was easy to prioritize whether to include such a system.

Similarly, one could argue the need for a game system to include the equivalent of detailed miniatures rules, with hex- or grid-based movement, line of sight modifiers, facing, attacks of opportunity, etc., but the scope of the BRP book didn't call for it.

Thanks for your reply to my questions, Jason.

I am perfectly aware that no such systems are strictly necessary for any rpg. I also think the scope of the BRP book is very well defined in that sense, so I did not really expect to find one of those in it. I was rather thinking about guidelines or simply enough sample vehicles to make up your own. I think vehicles should be easy to stat up in BRP, and this takes me to my next questions:

How are the sample vehicles and equipment defined in the new BRP book?

Does the book provide any kind of real-world benchmarks to which character or creature abilities (superstrength or superspeed, for instance) can be compared?

I remember you once stated that the ultimate goal of the new book would be to allow any GM to quickly create any kind of campaign. You just take the book, stat up some equipment, races and creatures using the samples provided or the rules for superpowers and you are ready to go. Do you think you achieved that goal?

Again, thanks for your continued patience!

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Why do you think so? I mean I can understand if some fans do not want to do that kind of work and are willing to fudge just what the capabilities of vehicles, and equipment are but there are others that would love to get down to business and work out reasonable (or outrageous) technological progress for different civilisations both past and future.

Joseph Paul

I meant rather a vehicle designer along the complexity of the Gurps vehicle design monster. Sorry for beeing inprecise in my post. A much simpler one, maybe as optional rule would be ok for me.(but not essential) One things I like in BRP is its simple and easy to use design. This should not change.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by The Tweaker

Thanks for your reply to my questions, Jason.

I am perfectly aware that no such systems are strictly necessary for any rpg. I also think the scope of the BRP book is very well defined in

Actually, this isn't true; for a general purpose mecha game, for example, a mecha design system is about as necessary as any subsystem can be. But that's not what BRP is.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

It wasn't really a case of "no one wanted to invest the time" - it was a question of:

a) has any BRP book ever dealt with gear/vehicle construction in such a fashion?
b) does BRP really have the need for those sorts of systems?

The answer to both of these questions is a resounding no, so it was easy to prioritize whether to include such a system.

Similarly, one could argue the need for a game system to include the equivalent of detailed miniatures rules, with hex- or grid-based movement, line of sight modifiers, facing, attacks of opportunity, etc., but the scope of the BRP book didn't call for it.

I should have been more precise in my question and answer. What I meant was that in the whole history of BRP no one at Chaosium ever felt the need to lay out the baseline assumptions for such a product. I did not mean that the current crew was lacking in initiative by not cramming yet more stuff into the new book.

I also am seeing that we may have a definition problem. BRP can stand for both the current project of core rules and the entire concept of what a Basic Role Playing system can encompass. I may just start writing BRPCore or BRPC to be more clear on that.

Saying that the BRPCore rules did not need a vehicle design system is fine. I wasn't criticizing that decision. I was asking why people felt that the BRP system did not need it because I certainly feel that such a thing would be an incredible boon to the system. CbGl (Cthulhu by Gaslight) has an equipment guide out in monograph and it would be nice if the stats in that did not conflict outrageously with those in other equipment guides to, hopefully, come.

Saying that the BRP system does not need technolgy/vehicle design rules is, I believe, a serious oversight and very limiting to the game as a whole because it makes several genres more difficult to put together. Handwaving stats for things will only take you so far before you handwave yourself into a corner. I sincerely hope that is not what you are saying.

Long ago what I found in RQ was an elegance and rationality that held together well where other games did not. The mechanics were complex without being complicated and gave rich, detailed results. It was obvious that a lot of thought had gone into it and I don't see any thing in the system that would prevent that from continuing with an equipment creation book.

Thank you again for your efforts in compiling all of the BRP stuff and for answering questions here.

Joseph Paul

[The Tweaker]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Actually, this isn't true; for a general purpose mecha game, for example, a mecha design system is about as necessary as any subsystem can be. But that's not what BRP is.

Not to derail this thread, but I think that even in a mecha game you could probably wing most details without using a dedicated subsystem, as long as you have a clear idea of how do you want your mecha to be (big, lumbering giants à la Great Mazinger? Roughly factible, as those from Battletech?). You could even steal...err... take the data from another mecha game and adapt them to BRP, if you wanted to play a mecha game with it. But that might rather be a topic for another thread.

And yes, BRP Autoduel is a cool idea...

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by The Tweaker

How are the sample vehicles and equipment defined in the new BRP book?

Equipment is defined as it's been in the past. Rules and guidelines are provided for adding powers to equipment to improve them or increase functionality. Almost any super power can be invested in a piece of gear and paid for with character points.

Vehicles are defined on a big table with the following entries:

Type - a generic description, like "automobile, modern sports car"
Skill - what skill you use
Rated Speed - an abstract value for the chase system
Maneuver - a modifier to your skill for doing maneuvers
Handling - an abstract value for the chase system
ACC - how many rated speed units it can accelerate or decelerate in a combat round
MOV - how many MOV it can go in a combat round, in average
Armor - how many armor points it has, split between hull and passenger protection (if different)
SIZ - self-explanatory
HP - self-explanatory
Crew - how many people needed to pilot it at one time
Passengers - how many people not involved in operating it can it hold, on average, in some comfort
Cargo - as SIZ
Value - self-explanatory
Notes - self-explanatory

I believe that having those values, and around three dozen examples, makes it pretty easy for anyone to come up with some values of their own.

Originally Posted by The Tweaker

Does the book provide any kind of real-world benchmarks to which character or creature abilities (superstrength or superspeed, for instance) can be compared?

As much as BRP ever has.

Originally Posted by The Tweaker

Do you think you achieved that goal?

I think I've come closer than anyone yet has, though I'm certain that once it hits print, I'll start a list of changes for Basic Roleplaying (Revised and Expanded Edition). It always works like that.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

I also am seeing that we may have a definition problem. BRP can stand for both the current project of core rules and the entire concept of what a Basic Role Playing system can encompass.

You are correct in this.

I'm not opposed to any vehicle/gear systems for BRP as a game line, but in my opinion based on the project's scope and goal, the BRP book I wrote was complete enough without such a system.

[The Tweaker]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

I believe that having those values, and around three dozen examples, makes it pretty easy for anyone to come up with some values of their own.

Certainly. That's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

I think I've come closer than anyone yet has, though I'm certain that once it hits print, I'll start a list of changes for Basic Roleplaying (Revised and Expanded Edition). It always works like that.

Sad but true, as with almost all extensive projects

Thanks once more, Jason. My curiosity is more than satisfied. Now, I will go back to impatiently waiting for the book to be released at last.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

You are correct in this.

I'm not opposed to any vehicle/gear systems for BRP as a game line, but in my opinion based on the project's scope and goal, the BRP book I wrote was complete enough without such a system.

And I am in agreement with you on that.

Joseph Paul

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by The Tweaker

Not to derail this thread, but I think that even in a mecha game you could probably wing most details without using a dedicated

And you could wing combat and character generation, too, but like those, the nature of a mecha is a bit to close to the point in the game for this to serve most people well. So I think either one has to argue that _any_ subsystem can be done without, or that for some sorts of games, vehicle construction systems are, indeed, necessary.